lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:10:29 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Vasiliy Kulikov <>
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,,
	Arnd Bergmann <>,
	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Pekka Enberg <>,
	Matt Mackall <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] implement SL*B and stack usercopy runtime checks

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Vasiliy Kulikov <> wrote:
>> If you seriously clean it up (that at a minimum includes things like
>> making it configurable using some pretty helper function that just
>> compiles away for all the normal cases,
> Hm, it is not as simple as it looks at the first glance - even if the
> object size is known at the compile time (__compiletime_object_size), it
> might be a field of a structure, which crosses the slab object
> boundaries because of an overflow.

No, I was more talking about having something like

  extern int check_user_copy(const void *kptr, unsigned long size);
  static inline int check_user_copy(const void *kptr, unsigned long size)
  { return 0; }

so that the actual user-copy routines end up being clean and not have
#ifdefs in them or any implementation details like what you check
(stack, slab, page cache - whatever)

If you can also make it automatically not generate any code for cases
that are somehow obviously safe, then that's an added bonus.

But my concern is that performance is a real issue, and the strict
user-copy checking sounds like mostly a "let's enable this for testing
kernels when chasing some particular issue" feature, the way
DEBUG_PAGEALLOC is. And at the same time, code cleanliness and
maintainability is a big deal, so the usercopy code itself should have
minimal impact and look nice regardless (which is why I strongly
object to that kind of "(!slab_access_ok(to, n) ||
!stack_access_ok(to, n))" crud - the internal details of what you
check are *totally* irrelevant to the usercopy code.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists